brewster wrote:[quote]Monroe wrote:Has anyone ever explained how the state was never able to reign in JCBOE spending yet thought it was OK to return them control? Was there no one willing to say "no, you can't pay your janitors that".

About 20 years ago, there was a scandal with JCPS janitors whereby they were clocking major overtime on the order of time sheet reporting of allegedly working 23 hours per day. If you search you might still find the hudson reporter and nj.com articles.

It occurred under the tenure of the superintendent that immediately preceeded Dr Lyles. He retired with an unused sick/vacation time payout that was huge (about a 1/2 million $, IIRC) and amounted to computing nearly never taking a sick day or vacation day. He did have to account for one taxpayer funded vacation, publicly, his "business trip" to London which occured during the same era as the janitor overtime scandal.

Only in Hudson County? 2 school superintendents getting paid $200K+ to sit at home

Hudson County has 10 school superintendents right now and two of them are getting paid six-figure salaries for not working.

Jersey City’s superintendent, Marcia V. Lyles, who was dismissed by Jersey City’s school board in January but is still getting paid her $231,000 salary, plus benefits. The board can’t fire her without getting the state involved, so it is keeping her on the payroll until her contract expires … in June 2020.

Monroe wrote:My point here is that as long as JC has been severely overfunded and undertaxed JC residents didn’t care about school funding, and BOE inefficient and wasteful spending. Now that’s changing we’ll see JC taxpayers sing a different tune.

If you limited your righteous tirades to that, they would be less offensive. It's undeniable that all the public institutions in JC are unaccountable money vanishing machines.

Has anyone ever explained how the state was never able to reign in JCBOE spending yet thought it was OK to return them control? Was there no one willing to say "no, you can't pay your janitors that".

My point here is that as long as JC has been severely overfunded and undertaxed JC residents didn’t care about school funding, and BOE inefficient and wasteful spending. Now that’s changing we’ll see JC taxpayers sing a different tune.

Monroe wrote:Bullshit? Dad pays $32,000 per year in property taxes despite not having a child in school since 1978. And school cost in his town is less than $18,000/year.

JC residents pay 17% of the $23,000 cost. Pretty good deal. Fulop has been squealing about JC paying its fair share, to the point of getting the payroll tax rather than take care of its own children.

Your anecdote of your wealthy dad is not really relevant to how our education system is funded. There is no expectation that anyone pays enough yearly to educate their kids, and very few do. Like SS, its a pay as you go system, everyone pays to benefit the students of that year, some over their lifetime will pay many times over for that education, some not, depending on their property value.

Your bullshit is always trying to frame the normal system of areas with poverty getting more aid as some sort of conspiracy. If your agenda was more transparency, and less waste and generous contracts in the JC system to bring down costs, I'd be right beside you, but all you want is less education money going to this city regardless of its outcome. 'Starve the Beast' always has innocent victims.

Monroe wrote:Plenty of people pay property taxes enough to cover education costs in the suburbs. As JC pays only 17% of educating its own children (and illegal kids) the impact is tiny. As JC will begin paying its fair share expect the tone to change.

Now you're deep, deep in the bullshit. Average NJ property tax is $8,767, and schools get perhaps half that. Have 2 kids and you're paying like 1/8 the cost at best. Try again, that one did not fly.

Plenty of people pay property taxes enough to cover education costs in the suburbs. As JC pays only 17% of educating its own children (and illegal kids) the impact is tiny. As JC will begin paying its fair share expect the tone to change.

Yes, something we as a society agreed to provide for our own CITIZENS. Big difference.

Citation please? US Supreme Court decided in 1982, Plyler v. Doe that all children qualify. Wrote Justice Brennan in the decision:

Quote:

It is difficult to understand precisely what the state hopes to achieve by promoting the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime.

Monroe wrote:Add in ESL, lunch, IEP’s, and I’m sure the average illegal kids costs well over $25,000/per student per year. Let’s say two kids-are their parents paying $50,000 a year in taxes?

Hell no.

No one, citizen or not, who actually sends their kids to public schools pays taxes that come close to the education cost of their kids. We as a society decided education was a thing we needed to do with taxes from everyone, even those with no children.

Yes, something we as a society agreed to provide for our own CITIZENS. Big difference.

Monroe wrote:Add in ESL, lunch, IEP’s, and I’m sure the average illegal kids costs well over $25,000/per student per year. Let’s say two kids-are their parents paying $50,000 a year in taxes?

Hell no.

No one, citizen or not, who actually sends their kids to public schools pays taxes that come close to the education cost of their kids. We as a society decided education was a thing we needed to do with taxes from everyone, even those with no children.

Monroe wrote:The story guesses almost 12% of K-12 students are here illegally. If that’s the avg, then JC must be higher. Yet Fulop with his sanctuary city crap encourages illegals to come here. Imagine how much it costs the BOE and NJ taxpayers who carry JC’s load?

Regardless of the dubious accuracy of that "guess", the undocumented most certainly pay taxes. Property tax through rent even if they don't own, sales taxes, and even a good chunk of income tax and SS they'll never see back if they're using a stolen SSN to work on the books like Trump's employees.

The story guesses almost 12% of K-12 students are here illegally. If that’s the avg, then JC must be higher. Yet Fulop with his sanctuary city crap encourages illegals to come here. Imagine how much it costs the BOE and NJ taxpayers who carry JC’s load?

dtjcview wrote:Not saying after-school programs are a bad idea. Saying they won't work for everyone.

Nothing does, which is why some problems need to be picked at rather than coming up with a "Grand Solution for Everyone". But defunding after school activities is patently stupid.

Leaving the spend in control of schools is stupid. It'll get cut first.

There are better ways to ring-fence the money. For example, the UK has a novel approach which runs a lot of leisure facilities as a non-profit business - plowing back profits generated from broader community-use.

Parent: "No, you go to school, but you can't go out socially with friends."

Child: "What?! This is the THIRD time you've tried to punish me. You're just HARASSING ME! This is DYSFUNCTIONAL!"

I only wish the Jersey Journal could have reported he depletion of a $70 million reserve fund under Lyles over the past 5 or so years with the vigor they are covering the vote to remove Lyles from her duties.

dtjcview wrote:Can't help think if you took 20% or so of school funding, and gave that directly to the students or parents as conditional incentives - standards of attainment, behavior, and attendance and would skyrocket.

How about, for a fraction that price, attractive after school programs like music and sports that you must maintain a certain GPA for?

Those are perks not incentives for many - though may form part of a collection of incentives. What motivates you more - your free corporate gym membership or your year-end bonus?

Quote:

Involvement in sports is the most popular extracurricular activity for high school students. Sports require time and energy, but surprisingly that doesn’t come at the cost of academic performance. Sports participation is associated with higher GPAs, lower dropout rates and stronger commitments to school compared with the average, nonathlete high school student.

Widespread ParticipationAcross the United States, approximately 60 percent of all high students play on a school-sponsored sports team, according to a 2015 report by Child Trends. Boys were more likely to play sports than girls. Most school districts have eligibility requirements that require athletes to maintain a certain GPA and avoid absences if they want to play. The team may drop an athlete who performs poorly in the classroom.

Average GPAsIn 2009, the average GPA was 3.10 for a female high school graduate and 2.90 for male students. Researchers at Michigan State University determined that students who participated in vigorous sports did 10 percent better in science, English, math and social studies compared with other students. Different studies show various results regarding athlete versus nonathlete GPAs, with some showing athletes having a full point higher GPA than nonathletes.

dtjcview wrote:Can't help think if you took 20% or so of school funding, and gave that directly to the students or parents as conditional incentives - standards of attainment, behavior, and attendance and would skyrocket.

How about, for a fraction that price, attractive after school programs like music and sports that you must maintain a certain GPA for?

Those are perks not incentives for many - though may form part of a collection of incentives. What motivates you more - your free corporate gym membership or your year-end bonus?

dtjcview wrote:Can't help think if you took 20% or so of school funding, and gave that directly to the students or parents as conditional incentives - standards of attainment, behavior, and attendance and would skyrocket.

How about, for a fraction that price, attractive after school programs like music and sports that you must maintain a certain GPA for?

Can't help think if you took 20% or so of school funding, and gave that directly to the students or parents as conditional incentives - standards of attainment, behavior, and attendance and would skyrocket.

JERSEY CITY — The controversy surrounding Thursday’s sacking of Jersey City Schools Superintendent Marcia V. Lyles turned chaotic in recent days, with a state official calling the action invalid on Friday and the school board hastily convening on Sunday night to “clarify” that it is putting Lyles on paid administrative leave for the next 17 months.

Jersey City school board sinks to new low | Jersey Journal editorial

The ax fell just hours after it was learned that Lyles is suing the board and the union, charging her civil rights have been violated and alleging harassment and a hostile workplace, among other things.

The financial support is huge, JC spends 25% more per student than the state average, which itself is among the highest in the country. If JC needs more school funding it can raise the local tax rate, which is far below the state average.

The evil Teacher's union strikes again. It shouldn't be an either/or situation here. Both parents and teachers have to be in partnership to move the district forward. Lyles was incapable of doing that. The financial situation is beyond dire and if one group thinks they need to "run" the district. For Jersey City teachers, it's not about running the system. It's about being respected and having our voice listened to. Lyles refused to do that.

I have been to meetings where parents complain there is no soap or toilet issue in the restrooms and teachers complain about the lack of paper and books. That is wrong considering contracts are going to vendors for questionable services. I don't like the personal attacks but neither do I think she is doing good job.

based on our experience in JC, and with the schools, I agree with both of your assessments, and with the looming school funding crises, I don't think we are prepared for it.

parent and community organizations are working and lobbying for funding sources and solutions to eventually fully fund our children's public district school education along with addressing facility deficiencies, yet those in charge, be it the school board or city, are not prioritizing and focusing on the problems.

tone and professionalism, a culture of treating everyone with dignity and respect, will not pay the bills or fix buildings or the water supply, but goes a long way to creating a constructive framework to work on and solve the problems and issues. unfortunately, we do not appear to have it in Jersey City.

also, agree with brewster about the reval delay, who from the beginning questioned and opposed it.

Quote:

brewster wrote:Quote:

tern wrote:Terrible that the Teacher's Union gets to dictate how the school system is run, but me and most of the other parents in Jersey City weren't there tonight, and 150 teachers were, until enough of us make it a priority to oppose them, they get to run the show.

Robin.

Good point, but since she was a lame duck not much interest in this battle. But to your larger point, I find the entire schools issue to be impenetrable. As far as I can tell all the conflict is over who gets to pillage the system, the teachers or the admin, not over how can they do a better job.

I'd love to know more. If only there was some Journalists who would actually report in depth on the issues facing the $600m/year JC system and the implications of the factions fighting, rather than just the blow by blow. But this is what you get when Newsrooms are gutted. Big stories like the implications of the reval delay and the schools crisis simply can't be covered since most of it isn't a couple of paragraphs on "what happened today".